Where Islam spreads, freedom dies

The integration genocide plan recently presented to the French government aims to regulate the way in which journalists are allowed to refer to the invader population, thus limiting the information French people are allowed to receive about the consequences of the invasion.

Principle 1.1

Recognition comes through "non-designation" because "to designate is to classify and stigmatise"

Out of a concern for setting an example, revise all the lexical registers used within and by institutions of public action as well as by the media and political parties.

Specifically that translates to:
Inscription in the various charters "quality", "welcome", (Marianne Charter particularly) ...of a dimension that respects the identities of individuals on the same basis that a hospitalised patient is respected for example ("hospitalised patients are treated with consideration. Their beliefs are respected. Their privacy is preserved as well as their peace of mind..."

...

Putting in place recommendations for the media and thus journalists using what is done in Belgium as a model.

In 1994, the AGJPB [tn: journalists' association] and the Centre for Equality of Opportunities and the Struggle Against Racism published a guide on "Recommendations for information concerning non-indigenes" following a study into the way the media speak of migration and people of foreign origin. Thus the first recommendation is "not to mention the nationality, origins, ethnic membership, skin colour, religion or culture unless this information is relevant."

The fact of looking into the resort to sanctions to enforce non-designation. In this field, reference could be made to what has been developed in the United Kingdom or Canada aiming to put in place a crime of "racial harassment". The interest aspect of this notion lies in the fact that not only racist acts or remarks are in question but the fact of being unjustly humiliated because of one's origins.

These guidelines, an equivalent of the NUJ Guidelines on Race Reporting in Britain, are clearly already being followed by French journalists, except in rare cases. But now this plan envisages introducing criminal sanctions to punish those rare instances of truth-telling.

What is offensive here is that journalists will decide what is "relevant" and what is not. If people with certain characteristics are disproportionately involved in certain kinds of activity, that information deserves to be known so that it can feed into the formulation of and democratic reflection on government policy. For example, if people of recent immigrant origin are disproportionately involved in crime, that's a factor that deserves to be taken into account when considering the country's immigration policy. But journalists, in France and throughout Europe, are systematically denying people the information they need to evaluate and reflect on government policy.

In part, this derives from the American example, where such practices prevail in relation to negroes. But here's the fundamental difference. Negroes have been present in the United States since it was first reformulated as an independent state. They are not there as a result of government policy. Even there, the disproportionate negro involvement in crime deserves to be considered in relation to many other policies. So there is still no excuse for journalistic deceit. But it is even less excusable in Europe, where non-Europeans are only present in significant numbers because of immigration policies. Europeans deserve the information required to assess the results of those policies, yet that information is systematically denied to them by the establishment media.

Incidentally, I am interested in receiving information about similar journalistic codes of practice in other European countries. If you are aware of any, please
provide relevant links in the comment field.

The jihadist in question was a Somali, spending time in Norway when not working with Al Shabaab in Somalia and Kenya, and he was also at a time given a Norwegian citizenship.

The rule is, as much as you can, whenever you can, use the European ethnic designation to describe anything negative. For future statistics, the indiginous people will not easily be able to go back and point to the fact that certain crime was committed by the actual ethnic groups belonging to a specific death cult in particular.

Whenever possible also make sure to use any European designation with photo, if you can find anything positive about a muslim immigrant, or relate anything positive to islam, in order to magnify this detail, and show that the European should not relate any distinct positive characteristics to his own ethnic group.

Dilute and dissolve the European's identity as much as you can, and smear that of the invaders', preferably the islamic, in the face of the European.

At the end of the day, the message to the European is not to keep an identity different from the invaders'. By erasing the European's own identity, it will be much easier to impregnate "the new identity" on him.

Tabula rasa, in a way..

The question remains, will the European, be it in France, in Sweden, in Norway, in England, in Germany, in Belgium, in Italy, in Greece, in Spain, or in any European country, accept this way of erasing his European identity?

European peoples fought back from the beginning of attempts of mohammedan invasions, while Asian and African peoples were not strong enough to fight it down.

Some examples of the French mediatic onomastic.For Le Monde, Killian 13 years old, is killed in his college by "Vladimir". In fact : Souleymane. (Forename modified without mention.)According to Le Parisien : "The Algerian thief that nothing stops" is called Francis. For M6 (TV) : Djihad, who shots with a laser planes at their landing is named Sébastien. (Modified without mention.)

More details on the Belgian case. Recommendations list to the journalists.Abstract :http://www.ajp.be/deontologie/recommandationsallochtones.phpFull :http://www.ajp.be/telechargements/Allochtonesrecomresume.pdf

The media's work to "force" Europeans to identify with this South African, is beyond proportions. But it seems that it is a welcome opportunity for the Western elites, and their allies in ideology, to adopt a pavlovian reflex to think that "black is good", or, in this case, even "black is god", and furthermore, "Black is God", "God is Black"...

Well, how could they make an opportunity like this go to waste? They already succeeded in establishing the Kenyan at the Casa Blanca, some sort of blackish god. Now they have two. And, at the same time, they can over-do the Mandela coverage, to hide the genocide of the Europeans going on in South Africa, as we speak.

- Look at Mandela, and see..! Mandela is ANC, and South Africa. How could there be any genocide there?!

The killers are black. Mandela is black. Mandela is Go(o)d. So there cannot possibly be any black genocide on Europeans...in South Africa. At least, let's not talk about it.

How pathetic, to see European followers of Mandela present at the funeral in SA these days, identifying with him and Black, and looking the other way, not seeing the killing of European descendants nearby. In fact, accepting the genocide. It is not pathetic, it is criminal beyond words.

Actually, the same leaders look the other way when Europeans on European soil are killed and desecrated, by blacks. (Lee Rigby, RIP)

You mention the CPFs. Would you allow me to just point out to those not familiar with the meaning of it, that it stands for Chance Pour La France, luck for France, said with the utmost sarcasm. Those who have come to save and bring luck to the - unfortunate - French...